Talk:Homestead Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An event mentioned in this article is a May 20 selected anniversary

Contents

[edit] Modern-day homesteading in Kansas

I've heard that something similar to the Homestead Act is being conducted now (as of early 2004) in Kansas; that if people are willling to live in certain towns, they can have land and a house to put on it. Anybody know what I'm talking about? Rhymeless 18:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Homestead Act was repealed by Congress. It is no longer active. See [1]

Yes, the original homestead act was repealed. However there has been discussion of instituting some sort of new version to encourage people to move to sparsely populated areas that have been losing population recently. I have not heard whether any such proposals have been implemented. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About a dozen communities in Kansas are offering incentives to new residents including free lots to reverse recent population drains. Most lots are less than an acre in size. Atwood, McDonald, Marquette, Minneapolis, Kanopolis, Holyrood, Plainville, Wilson, and Ellsworth County are among those offering such deals. [[2]] Great Scott 10:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More info on free land in Kansas: KansasFreeLand.com 16 Mar 2005

[edit] Andrew Johnson

Why exactly was Andrew Johnson known as "Father of the Homestead Act"?--Pharos 15:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Becuase he pushed for its passage while in Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.81 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

This article seems to contradict itself. In one paragraph "Usually, the land that was available [through the Homestead Act] was in too poor a shape to farm on", while in another, "Homestead tracts were often excellent farmland and provided subsistence and a steady income. Homestead farmers in time became the agricultural producers to the nation as a whole".

Obviously one is false, but it's not something I know enough about to determine...

[edit] NPOV dispute

Added the NPOV tag because the article hardly acknowledges the impact the Homesteading Act had on Native Americans. As homesteading was also allowed on reservation land and especially the Plains Indians had little experience farming, the Settlers often took the best land, leaving the indigenous population with scraps to work on and depriving them of the little land that was alotted to them by the treaties.

In the "legacy" section is a paragraph that appears to be gratuitously anti-settler. For one thing, most of the native tribes had already been moved off of their historical lands before the homestead act came into being.
True, but I wasn't talking about historical land. Even the Reservations were opened to Homesteading, after they were given specifically to the Native Americans in the Treaties (which can, and imo should be interpreted as binding contracts).
Furthermore it is pretty wishy-washy about who is to blame (the Government of that time, if you ask me), and not "gratuitously anti-settler". It just states that "primarily" white settlers prospered from the Act. Who else prospered after the Act? Black settlers?
I well imagine that a few scattered Indians themselves probably tried invoking the act by settling... of course, their odds probably weren't much better than anyone else's. Sweetfreek 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reservations (i.e. "Indian Trust Territories") were not available for homesteading. It gets complicated though if the homesteader began occupancy prior to the establishment of the reservation. Under federal law, a reservation and a homestead are both withdrawls from the public domain - the earliest one is the only valid one in the eyes of the courts. Many reservations were established before they were surveyed, and after they were established often settlers came forward with a prior homestead claim (undoubtably many of these claims were fradulent). If a federal court found that the homestead was established prior to the reservation, then the land wasn't in the public domain and therefore the Feds couldn't use it for a reservation.
Another issue that crops up is that a reservation is land that is held in trust for an indian tribe by the federal government, however until recently it's been very difficult for tribes to bring suit for breach of trust. Often when there was a dispute over reservation land the federal government would be on both sides - say Bureau of Indian Affairs vs. Bureau of Reclaimation which is problematic to say the least. But that's out of the scope of this article. Toiyabe 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
66.167.139.201 23:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC):Converted into a section-specific NPOV dispute.

[edit] Fraud and corporate use

66.167.139.201 23:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC): I labeled this section as of questionable accuracy because of its lack of examples. History is certainly filled with examples of people taking advantage of legislation for an unintended purpose, but specifics are needed in order to make this section informative.

Added some specifics.Toiyabe 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Derivations"

"[...] similar acts, usually termed the Selection Acts were passed in the various Australian colonies in the 1860s, beginning in 1861 in New South Wales."

People copied an 1862 act in 1861? Amazing... -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] veterans preference

If a Civil War veteran was given preference, wouldn't a main reason for having this land grant be to entice men to enlist in the Army? Was that Lincoln's intention. The subject is not mentioned in this article but seems inportant. --cda 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

the goal was to prevent hurting men who were serving in the army during the war. (otherwise the soldiers would complain that civilians had a chance to homestead and they did not.) Rjensen 16:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "in cahoots"

Near the end of the article the phrase "in cahoots" is used. Is this in keeping with a formal tone? or should it be changed to "collaborated"

"In practice, many of these witnesses were bribed or otherwise in cahoots with the claimant."

[edit] Last claim

The last claim section describes it as filed in 1979 and granted in 1988, and then signed by President Lincoln.

Having lived through the 1980s, I confess I don't recall President Lincoln being in office or in any state to sign anything at that point.

Is this statement placed in the wrong section perhaps? It would make more sense under "Reason for the Homestead act."

[edit] Results

Is this really necessary:

The leading historian Paul Gates has concluded, "their noble purpose and the great part they played in enabling nearly a million and half people to acquire farm land, much of which developed into farm homes, far outweigh the misuse to which they were put."

It just seems pointless, and frankly a nod to Paul Gates.

--Oddperson 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

when leading historians come to a conclusion Wiki reports it. Rjensen 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Notice, it looks pretty much exactly like the rest :) (My Remark). --Oddperson 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also notice that it is just ONE historian, not many, not a couple, not even a few, JUST ONE.


This page has been vandalized, can someone fix it?